4.6 Article

The transcriptional response to the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) reveals extended differences between tolerant and susceptible olive (Olea europaea L.) varieties

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183050

关键词

-

资金

  1. Progetto Olea - Genomica e miglioramento genetico dell'olivo, Ministero per le Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestall [DM.27011/7643/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) is the most devastating pest of cultivated olive (Olea europaea L.). Intraspecific variation in plant resistance to B. oleae has been described only at phenotypic level. In this work, we used a transcriptomic approach to study the molecular response to the olive fruit fly in two olive cultivars with contrasting level of susceptibility. Using next-generation pyrosequencing, we first generated a catalogue of more than 80,000 sequences expressed in drupes from approximately 700k reads. The assembled sequences were used to develop a microarray layout with over 60,000 olive-specific probes. The differential gene expression analysis between infested (i.e. with II or III instar larvae) and control drupes indicated a significant intraspecific variation between the more tolerant and susceptible cultivar. Around 2500 genes were differentially regulated in infested drupes of the tolerant variety. The GO annotation of the differentially expressed genes implies that the inducible resistance to the olive fruit fly involves a number of biological functions, cellular processes and metabolic pathways, including those with a known role in defence, oxidative stress responses, cellular structure, hormone signalling, and primary and secondary metabolism. The difference in the induced transcriptional changes between the cultivars suggests a strong genetic role in the olive inducible defence, which can ultimately lead to the discovery of factors associated with a higher level of tolerance to B. oleae.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据